Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19838842›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2009

Improving primary care for older adults with cancer and depression.

Jesse R Fann, Ming-Yu Fan, Jürgen Unützer

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. PsyScan e-tool to support diagnosis and management of psychological problems in general practice: a randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Low-income cancer patients in depression treatment: dropouts and completers.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2013
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Developing the multidisciplinary and multispecialty workforce and the systems needed to sustain high-quality care from diagnosis through long-term survivorship.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. A Positive Distress Screen…Now What? An Updated Call for Integrated Psychosocial Care.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jesse R FannDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Box 356560, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. fann@u.washington.edu
Ming-Yu Fan
Jürgen Unützer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDepression is common among older cancer patients, but little is known about the optimal approach to caring for this population. This analysis evaluates the effectiveness of the Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) program, a stepped care management program for depression in primary care patients who had an ICD-9 cancer diagnosis.

methodsTwo hundred fifteen cancer patients were identified from the 1,801 participants in the parent study. Subjects were 60 years or older with major depression (18%), dysthymic disorder (33%), or both (49%), recruited from 18 primary care clinics belonging to 8 health-care organizations in 5 states. Patients were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 112) or usual care (n = 103). Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression care manager who was supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care provider and who offered education, care management, support of antidepressant management, and brief, structured psychosocial interventions including behavioral activation and problem-solving treatment.

resultsAt 6 and 12 months, 55% and 39% of intervention patients had a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms (SCL-20) from baseline compared to 34% and 20% of usual care participants (P = 0.003 and P = 0.029). Intervention patients also experienced greater remission rates (P = 0.031), more depression-free days (P < 0.001), less functional impairment (P = 0.011), and greater quality of life (P = 0.039) at 12 months than usual care participants.

conclusionsThe IMPACT collaborative care program appears to be feasible and effective for depression among older cancer patients in diverse primary care settings.

Indexed as

AgedAge FactorsCohort StudiesDepressive DisorderFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleNeoplasmsPrimary Health CareQuality of LifeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID19838842
PMCPMC2763171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.